Rodger Bosch / AFP - Getty Images file
Physicist Stephen Hawking delivers a lecture in South Africa in 2008. In a new book, he says science doesn't need God to explain the origin of the universe.
Alan Boyle writes: British physicist Stephen Hawking's latest book is already making waves with his observation that science can explain the universe's origin without invoking God.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," Hawking and his co-author, Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow, write in "The Grand Design," which is due to be issued next week. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
That's the quote that lit the match in The Guardian as well in The Times of London, which published an excerpt from the book in its Thursday edition. But by itself, the quote doesn't have much "there" there. If Hawking is saying merely that something can arise from nothing willy-nilly, that's not much of an explanation for the origin of the universe.
What he's actually saying in the book is that when we study the universe's origins, we have to work our way back from the present, rather than assuming there's an arbitrary point 13.7 billion years ago when Someone pressed the button on a cosmic stopwatch. And when you look at it that way, the universe looks more and more like a quantum phenomenon, in which a multitude of histories diverge. This is what Hawking calls top-down cosmology.
Space and time fizzle out, so it can't be said that there is a time before the big bang — just as you can't say that there is something north of the North Pole. (I'm talking "north," not "up.")
Gravity is part of the picture because it helps keep the cosmic balance sheet in line. Here's the part of the paragraph just before the quote cited above: "Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes."
"The Grand Design" puts together ideas that Hawking has been trying out for a long time. Five years ago, for example, he noted that eliminating the question of what happened before the big bang meant "the beginning of the universe would be covered by science." And four years ago, he joked that he had presented a paper suggesting how the universe began during the same conference at which Pope John Paul II asked scientists to set the question aside.
Does Hawking's view mean that modern physics "leaves no place for God in the creation of the universe," as the Times suggests, or that "God did not create the universe," as The Guardian claims? Not unless you need a "God of the Gaps" to step into science's place. A more sophisticated view would hold that physics (and evolutionary biology, to cite another example) are the not-always-mysterious ways in which God routinely works. In fact, Soren Kierkegaard would say that God's workings have to be transparent — and I tend to side with Soren.
Some will argue that such a concept of divinity is so weak it should be sliced away with Occam's Razor. Others will quote chapter and verse to support their claim that religion trumps science. And still others will argue that science and religion should be non-overlapping magisteria. But hey, that's what the comment box below is for. Feel free to weigh in with your comments, and stay tuned for my Q&A with Leonard Mlodinow later in the week.
More about Stephen Hawking:
Well Stephen, You're very bright; so, first find nothing and then create something from it.
I'll even accept creating something from a total vacuum; which is still something.
Until then, my question remains "what exploded if nothing existed before the big bang"?
So who created god? How bout you find nothing, then create a god out of it.
I hope you're not expecting a reply to that question from a religious person... because the odds are you won't get one.
Why? Well its all fine and nice for a religious person to ask "Well, how did the universe form from nothing smarty pants? It MUST have been created by god!"... yet when you ask the question "Well how did god get there?" they will suddenly dodge the question and conversation because there is no rational answer to that question that a religious person will accept. If they do attempt to answer it, the answer will be an irrational attempt to explain how god was always there and that its wrong to question god (when the question makes you uncomfortable, make the question go away... thats how religion survives).
Sorry Steve Hawking fans, but I am afraid this guy isn't all he is cracked up to be. He has been placed on a pedestal and I really don't see why.
He says...."Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"
Oh really.... well then where did the law of gravity come from? Nothing I suppose. I don't think so. The law itself represents something and like all of natures laws, there is a lot of intelligence behind them its not all that difficult to see.....including the laws of nature that just happened to create life and all of wonders herein.
I have "faith" that ProAmerica is going to answer that question MCC. Come on Pro, we're rooting for you. Be the first religious person in the world to answer that question coherently.
Gravity is the curvature of Space Time. Curvature is a mathematical concept, like zero or infinity, or the number two for that matter. Who created mathematics? The human mind(s). The creation of God by human minds is a solution to a problem, just like the calculation of the orbit of the moon is a solution to a problem, if your goal is to get to the moon. I wouldn't be suprised if there have been attempts for a mathematical proof of God, but I don't know of any successful ones.
Stephen Hawking's faith in his ideas appears to be much greater than the faith many have in God. “Because there is a law such as gravity... Spontaneous creation”!
The highest proof of evolution is found in the evolution of Science “facts”. “We have to work our way back from the present” over merely several decades of discarded science text books as proof positive. Scientific “facts” die off and are replaced more “advanced facts” which we very well may observe to evolve again in the near future.
Ha, Ha!!, This is not really news. A statement like this would come from an athiest. Why is this suprising? Stephen Hawking is probably a bitter man because of his physical condition and God never restored him. Stephen, my friend, God said in Isaiah 55:8-9:
8"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
You can't beat God my friend. He created us to be dependent on him. You cannot take your next breath without God's permission.
It's funny how you Bible thumper's like to put down science, except when it behooves you to take notice--like when you're sick and dying. Frankly, I believe in God just simply because I need to. There are still gaps that science cannot explain, and because we are not just made up of brains, but also of emotions and minds, there will probably always be room for the notion of a God. I tell people that whatever works for them and makes them better person is fine with me. However, bear in mind, religion is also a choice. It is a lifestyle choice. You're free to practice any religion or none. People also change religions often and practice their religions cafeteria style. Further, we do not all agree on what various religion tenets say and that confusion is also a right. Therefore, religion cannot, on a social level, trump something that is as rigorous as science and should never be used to harm others.
"The human race is so puny compared to the universe that being disabled is not of much cosmic significance." --Stephen Hawking
Read Full Article »